Stafleu has distinguished himself with ground-breaking work on the theoretical foundations of physics. Subsequently he has broadened his scope and entered the field of general philosophy – including reflections on artefacts and technology. In his assessment of what I have done in my 2009 work on Philosophy: Discipline of the disciplines he raises a number of issues to which I respond in what follows below. In some instances it appears that we opt for different designations of the same states of affairs, but different understandings do surface in some other cases. Stafleu’s objection to the expression ‘sphere sovereignty’ because ‘no modal aspect is ruled by a sovereign’ reveals a misunderstanding of metaphorical language, which prompts a brief discussion of analogies and metaphors. The complicated challenge to find an appropriate designation of the core meaning of the physical aspect receives some attention as well as the distinction between modal laws and type laws. The nature of the transcendental–empirical method is briefly highlighted. In the past it has prompted me to pay attention to the meaning of both the social and the cultural–historical aspects of reality and to consider some implications for the nature of technology and tools. Stafleu does advance a new and insightful discussion of particular human skills characterised by different modal aspects.